Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds meaningful behavioral context, notably that played matches never move, which is not encoded in annotations. It also reveals three distinct operational modes (time shift, delay, court/slot move).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary actions, and includes a critical constraint without extraneous detail. Every word serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with nested objects and an output schema, the description covers the main actions and a key constraint. It does not explain the internal structure of move_match or that actions might be exclusive, but these are partially covered by the schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context for a complex tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 60%, and the description compensates by explicitly linking the three operations to parameters (start_time, delay_minutes, move_match). It also clarifies the purpose of move_match via 'specific court/slot'. The request_id and tournament_key are explained in the schema, so the description adds value where needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Shift', 'add', 'move') with resources ('start time', 'delay', 'match') and scope ('to a specific court/slot'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_schedule by focusing on mutations, and the constraint 'Played matches never move' adds specificity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate (rescheduling matches via time/delay/court changes) but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it. The constraint 'Played matches never move' implies a boundary, though no direct sibling comparison is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.